- 12 -
688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-
159; Lerch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-295, affd. 877 F.2d
624 (7th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner argues that because the consent decree entered in
the class action lawsuit provided payments for physical injuries
and physical sickness, some share of petitioner’s settlement
proceeds consist of damages received on account of personal
physical injury or physical sickness. Petitioner argues that
because he was a named member of the certified plaintiff class,
his claims are typical of the claims of the plaintiff class.
Petitioner argues that since unnamed plaintiffs must satisfy one
of the six factors set forth in the consent decree (discussed
supra) to qualify for compensation, petitioner must also satisfy
at least one of the six factors. Petitioner claims that the only
factor he satisfies is “whether claimant provided evidence of any
other compensable loss.” Petitioner contends that this
demonstrates that he sustained physical injury and physical
sickness.
We reject this argument. The six factors referred to by
petitioner are relevant to determining the amount of compensation
due to unnamed claimants. Assuming arguendo that we accept
petitioner’s self-serving and uncorroborated testimony, it
appears that petitioner qualified for at least three of the six
factors cited, none of which consists of personal physical
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007